‘Probe should be judicially examined': HC upholds summoning of 6 cleared by SIT in Tarn Taran murder trial

Indian Express

4 days ago

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday refused to quash a Tarn Taran trial court's order summoning six more people to face trial in a 2020 petrol pump murder case, holding that Special Investigation Team (SIT) findings are not binding on courts.
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, dismissing a revision petition by five of those summoned, relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2014 Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab, which defined the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
'The truthfulness of the plea of alibi raised by the petitioners can be verified on the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties,' the court said, adding: 'There is no gainsaying that the findings arrived at by the SIT are not binding on the court and every investigation has to be judicially examined.'
The case stems from an October 11, 2020, shooting at the Raj Kumar Brothers petrol pump on Khemkaran Road in Bhikhiwind. According to the FIR, complainant Dinesh Kumar was at the pump with his brother-in-law Mandeep Kumar alias Monu, who died in the attack, Paramjit Kumar and an employee when a group of armed men arrived.
Kumar named seven accused, including Satwinder Singh alias Pasi, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, Charanjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh, and Surjit Singh alias Vicky, along with 15–20 unidentified others. He alleged that Gopi fired the fatal shot, while others attacked and threatened them. The motive was linked to a civil dispute over a passage adjoining the pump.
An SIT formed on November 17, 2020, later gave three accused, namely Charanjit, Surjit, and Jasbir Singh Pasi, a clean chit based on CCTV footage and call records. Over subsequent reports, Harbhajan, Kulbir Singh Pasi and Gurnam Singh Pasi were also declared innocent. Initially, only Gopi and Satwinder faced trial.
During the trial, complainant Dinesh Kumar, testifying as a witness, repeated his allegations against all the accused. This led to a fresh application under Section 319 CrPC, which allows a court to summon others for trial if evidence emerges against them. On June 7, 2024, the trial court summoned all six earlier let off by the SIT.
The petitioners argued that the SIT's scientific evidence, including CCTV and call data, proved their alibi, and said the trial court had ignored the discretionary and exceptional nature of Section 319 powers. They also cited a cross-case filed by Charanjit Singh against the complainant's side.
Quoting Hardeep Singh, Justice Bhardwaj underlined that Section 319 CrPC confers 'discretionary and extraordinary power… to be exercised sparingly… only where strong and cogent evidence occurs… and not in a casual and cavalier manner.'
The judge also cited the Supreme Court's view that the evidence required under Section 319 'is more than prima facie… but short of satisfaction that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction' and that 'there is no scope… to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.'
Referring to earlier precedents, including Joginder Singh (1979) and Anju Chaudhary (2013), the court noted that even those named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted can be summoned if warranted.
Finding 'no infirmity' in the Tarn Taran court's order, Justice Bhardwaj dismissed the petition without commenting on the merits.